GeForce GTX 960 vs Radeon RX Vega M GL

#ad 
Buy
Radeon RX Vega M GL Radeon RX Vega M GL / 870
VS
#ad 
Buy
GTX 750 GM206 GTX 750 v2 GTX 950 GTX 950 Low Power GTX 960 GTX 960 OEM

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega M GL with GeForce GTX 960, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega M GL
2018
4 GB HBM2, 65 Watt
8.70

GTX 960 outperforms RX Vega M GL by an impressive 57% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
RX Vega M GL RX Vega M GL
GTX 960 GTX 960

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking460357
Place by popularitynot in top-10050
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data7.94
Power efficiency10.599.02
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code namePolaris 22GM206
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 February 2018 (7 years ago)22 January 2015 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores12801024
Core clock speed931 MHz1127 MHz
Boost clock speed1011 MHz1178 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million2,940 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate80.8875.39
Floating-point processing power2.588 TFLOPS2.413 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs8064

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0
InterfaceIGPPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Widthno data2-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)no data400 Watt
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin
SLI options-+

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeHBM2GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width1024 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz7.0 GB/s
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s112 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2
Multi monitor supportno data4 displays
HDMI-+
HDCP-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
G-SYNC support-+
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream-+
GeForce ShadowPlay-+
GPU Boostno data2.0
GameWorks-+

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

RX Vega M GL 8.70
GTX 960 13.67
+57.1%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

RX Vega M GL 3886
GTX 960 6106
+57.1%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD40−45
−62.5%
65
+62.5%
4K18−20
−61.1%
29
+61.1%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.06
4Kno data6.86

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Fortnite 55−60
−45.6%
80−85
+45.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−61.8%
55−60
+61.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
−38.5%
190−200
+38.5%
Dota 2 65−70
−36.8%
90−95
+36.8%
Fortnite 55−60
−45.6%
80−85
+45.6%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
−36.1%
49
+36.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−61.8%
55−60
+61.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−108%
50
+108%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Dota 2 65−70
−36.8%
90−95
+36.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
−61.8%
55−60
+61.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−16.7%
28
+16.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 55−60
−45.6%
80−85
+45.6%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
−35%
27−30
+35%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−100%
20−22
+100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Dota 2 30−35
−55.9%
50−55
+55.9%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
−66.7%
14−16
+66.7%

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how RX Vega M GL and GTX 960 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 960 is 63% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 960 is 61% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 960 is 108% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 960 is ahead in 17 tests (26%)
  • there's a draw in 49 tests (74%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 8.70 13.67
Recency 1 February 2018 22 January 2015
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 120 Watt

RX Vega M GL has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 84.6% lower power consumption.

GTX 960, on the other hand, has a 57.1% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce GTX 960 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega M GL in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GL is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 960 is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

AMD Radeon RX Vega M GL
Radeon RX Vega M GL
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960
GeForce GTX 960
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

RX Vega M GL Radeon RX Vega M GL
vs
GTX 880M GeForce GTX 880M
GTX 960 GeForce GTX 960
vs
R9 380 Radeon R9 380
RX Vega M GL Radeon RX Vega M GL
vs
Graphics 4-Cores iGPU (Arc) Graphics 4 Cores iGPU (Arc)
RX Vega M GH Radeon RX Vega M GH
vs
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Radeon 780M Radeon 780M
vs
RX Vega M GH RX Vega M GH
GTX 960M GeForce GTX 960M
vs
RX Vega M GL RX Vega M GL
GTX 860M GeForce GTX 860M
vs
RX Vega M GL RX Vega M GL
HD Graphics 630 HD Graphics 630
vs
RX Vega M GL RX Vega M GL
GTX 1050 Ti GeForce GTX 1050 Ti
vs
RX Vega M GL RX Vega M GL
HD 7870 Radeon HD 7870
vs
RX Vega M GL RX Vega M GL
GTX 1050 GeForce GTX 1050
vs
RX Vega M GL RX Vega M GL
GTX 770M SLI GeForce GTX 770M SLI
vs
RX Vega M GL RX Vega M GL
Quadro M1200 Quadro M1200
vs
RX Vega M GL RX Vega M GL

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.2 22 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega M GL on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 4056 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 960 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX Vega M GL or GeForce GTX 960, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.